HKSAR v. LI CHI PANG

HCMA000126/2000

HCMA 126/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM SPCC 8131/1999)

____________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
LI CHI PANG Appellant

____________

Coram: Hon Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 29 March 2000

Date of Judgment: 29 March 2000

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This Appellant was convicted after trial on 17 January 2000 of one charge of Possession of an Identity Card relating to Another andafter investigation he was sentenced to Training Centre. He appeals against that sentence.

2. The victim lost his identity card at a discotheque in Tsim Sha Tsui and later identified as his own an identity card police recoveredfrom Appellant’s possession. He did not know the Appellant. The identity card went missing on the evening of 28/29 August 1999. On29 August it was found in the Appellant’s possession when the police stopped and searched him outside a discotheque in Yau Ma Tei.The Appellant told the police that he did not know when the card had come into his possession and he did not know why he had thecard.

3. The Magistrate looked at the Appellant’s previous record which was a poor one. In June 1994 he was placed on a Probation Order of18 months for an offence of Robbery. In May 1996 for another Robbery he went to DATC. In July 1996 for another Robbery he went toDATC. There was another offence in July 1996 for Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which he was sent to DATC. In July 1996 he wasalso sentenced for Robbery and Theft charges for which he went to DATC.

4. Given that background, the Magistrate obtained Probation, DATC, Training Centre and Detention Centre reports. Rather unsurprisingly,Appellant was deemed not to be a suitable candidate for probation. DATC was no longer an option because at that point he was notdrug-dependant. He was unsuitable for the Detention Centre program because of its short duration and also because of his historyof drug abuse. He was considered suitable for Training Centre.

5. The Magistrate considered that a deterrent sentence was apposite in this case, when he took into account the facts and the Appellant’scircumstances. He took into account the Appellant’s age, education and background and considered that the comprehensive educationaland vocational training program offered by the Training Centre was the most appropriate way to dispose of this particular offender.He considered that without intervention, or without strong, compulsory, guidance, direction and counselling this Appellant was unlikelyto be able to rehabilitate himself.

6. I agree with the Magistrate’s disposal of the case. Taking into account all the matters relating to this Appellant and this offence,the Training Centre order is a proper sentence. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

(C-M Beeson)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

Representation:

Mr D Ozorio, SGC, for DPP

Appellant in person